Second, what is even the point? I get that this is meant to save the reputations of the CEO and the current Trustees, but that is not the beneficiaries’ problem. If helping beneficiaries were the point Akina would be chair and Crabbe would have been replaced months ago.

Third, Machado already admitted in her response to the auditor that the Budget processes at issue here (Kulia and Sponsorships) needed to be fixed. Is someone trying to bring these messed up processes back? pic.twitter.com/jC3GUq6C0R

Fourth, noting that the trustees approved the expenditures doesn’t help much. One of the main points of the audit was that the trustees felt ‘sandbagged’ into supporting these projects because funds were already committed or because they were ‘good’. pic.twitter.com/MaZV815sTz

Fifth, is this money well spent? Again, the auditor’s random selection of kulia grants found that none of them had been properly vetted. Like the ‘sandbagged’ trustees said, these projects look ‘good’ but is OHA tracking value for money? How? pic.twitter.com/TCroijjo8c